Do you get a “reshoot” for untapped targets?

[Nik Habicht]

I think you're hanging your argument on the part in bold --- and I wanted to go there with you. I cannot however ignore the underlined part -- which I think supports George's position, that we need to base the call on what we see on the target.

Consider for a moment that in your perfect scenario, T4 was actually taped between shooters. You watched Larry shoot it twice, and only twice, yet when you go to score it, the same four holes are there -- three alphas and a charlie. Now consider that I (or someone else you deem as trustworthy and reliable as Moneypenny or you)tell you that I taped the target? What's your call?

With the confirmation of both ROs and the previous shooter and the score sheet, it sure seems like the scoring hits were obvious which qualifies the underlined part.

Regardless, that rule directly labels this as a judgement call by the RO.

So when you RO, you remember every hit on every target for every shooter? 'Cause I'm thinking that would need to be the standard....

[Jake Di Vita]

Yes, I can usually remember every hit of the previous shooter although I don't agree that needs to be the standard. Even if I don't remember every single target, I would absolutely recall it on several targets...If this happens with a target I am sure of do I then make a call I know to be bad on the grounds that I don't remember every hit on every target? It seems like it would be prudent to work with the best information available to you and make decisions according to that.

[George Jones]

If the stage is not set the same for all competitors, it is by definition not fair and equal for all the competitors.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have a rule that also defines a range failure as one in which the targets weren't reset and/or pasted the same for every other competitor?

That has been brought up and discussed many times in the past. It seems, at first glance, to be the reasonable thing to do. Once you consider all the possible scenarios, however, it is no longer quite so simple. There are quite a number of reasons for hits to be not covered by pasters when you get around to scoring a target. They are not all the "fault" of the staff (failure to assure hits are pasted). Some are caused by rain, wind, muzzle blast, lousy pasters (sometimes after the shooter has engaged that target). Some are caused by the shooter (bonus shots on the same target).

Ultimately, the rule has survived very close scrutiny a number of times.

So it comes down to making a call on the target. It makes sense to me. But that's just me...

Edited June 18, 2010 by George Jones

[JThompson]

It's an easy thing to train around... I used to hesitate when I would see this, what I did to get over that is to shoot with a buddy and we would leave off pasting a target now and then. It gets your mind around the idea of shooting at a target that has not been restored.

When I first read this rule I was NOT in favor of it and as a shooter I still would like the stage reset the same for all. Here's the catch though... at a big match like the A5, this could cause multiple reshoots and that is just not acceptable if the CRO can make a correct call on what's there.

Having done the MD thing, some things that I dislike as a shooter become more clear and I can see both sides of an issue. In the past I looked at it strictly as a shooter. Once you take on the job and chew Tums like they were popcorn, you start to see more of the other side of some of the rules.

Edited June 18, 2010 by JThompson

[Flexmoney]

So when you RO, you remember every hit on every target for every shooter? 'Cause I'm thinking that would need to be the standard....

Why? The only thing you need to do is determine if you can make an accurate call on that one target of not. Other targets have no bearing.

[Flexmoney]

Consider for a moment that in your perfect scenario,

Can we lose that "perfect scenario" talk?

It was an actual situation at an Area match and the shooter was a likely favorite to win the division. I didn't fabricate it to fit my opinion. I posted it to share a perspective.

A perfect scenario is where there are no issues and the shooter keeps their first run...which they earned, good or bad.

Now consider..._____________ What's your call?

Whatever you plug in for consideration... Just follow the rule and judge if you can determine an accurate score or not.

[JThompson]

Double

Edited June 18, 2010 by JThompson

[CSEMARTIN]

Jim,

Please know that none of my comments were personal or directed at you. Area 5 was well done! You did a great job as Match Director. Unrestored targets happen at every match. It just so happens that two of the stages I shot at Area 5 were not completely restored. I encountered one target that wasn't pasted (a target that could only be engaged from one shooting position). A steel target on another stage wasn't set back up. I agree with the rule about the scoring of the target, and I think the rule is pretty clear. I am also convinced a lot of thought went into this rule, but I believe the philosophy behind it is flawed. My issue is the second variable in determining a hit factor....time. I'm not entirely sure why we are still discussing how to score the target!

It gets your mind around the idea of shooting at a target that has not been restored.

While on the clock, when I discovered the target I was about to shoot already had two holes in it, my first thought wasn't that it hadn't been restored. My initial thought was that I had missed a previous target. Clearly, I was confused. I ran through in my mind which target I may have missed and began to think about the penalties. I stood there like an idiot for at least three or four seconds trying to figure out if I needed to back up and recheck the target(s) I shot at the last shooting position. This unrestored target clearly screwed me. I had a pretty good time on the stage and came in second out of the single stackers. I know the rulebook won't support it, but I think it would have been fair for me to get a reshoot. I need to train for this or get in the habit of making sure all the targets are restored myself when I'm the next shooter. That'll add time too. Is that acceptable? Should I just walk around the stage when everyone is done pasting and setting steel to see if everything has been restored? How much time would it add to the match if everyone did that? If people started getting reshoots, would competitors get better about pasting targets and setting steel? I think they would.

[Nik Habicht]

Yes, I can usually remember every hit of the previous shooter although I don't agree that needs to be the standard. Even if I don't remember every single target, I would absolutely recall it on several targets...If this happens with a target I am sure of do I then make a call I know to be bad on the grounds that I don't remember every hit on every target? It seems like it would be prudent to work with the best information available to you and make decisions according to that.

If I'm the RM, that might very well be a question you'd get: Do you remember the previous competitor's hits for the entire stage? How about the guy before that? Memory's a funny thing -- not always reliable....

Beyond that you'd get questions like this: Are you positive the target wasn't taped? How do you know? Has someone owned up to not taping that? How about the rest of the squad? Could one or more pasters have flown or fallen off the target?

Bottom line -- all competitors in the match deserve an accurate score. (Holy cow, I agree with George -- I might never hear the end of this.....)

[Nik Habicht]

Whatever you plug in for consideration... Just follow the rule and judge if you can determine an accurate score or not.

I believe I am --- by not stopping at "...the Range Officer must judge whether or not an accurate score can be determined," but by continuing to read and apply the rest of the rule which provides specific guidance for how to accomplish that.....

[JThompson]

I don't take any rules discussion personally, that's why we have this forum to look at them objectively and consider points of view that we might not otherwise have thought about. I hate not having a stage restored and it sounds like you were clearly screwed by it. I don't think any of the rules are meant to be a gotcha for the shooters and I respect other opinions on this matter. It's not one I can be adamant about because there are times when a shooter is going to get screwed. It's one of those areas that is going to cause an issue. As the shooter, all we can do is plan our shoot and shoot our plan. I understand that this rule can cause people to hesitate and they aren't going to get a reshoot. I don't like it and said so in earlier posts in the thread.

There are other times you will see things equally unfair, but you have to play through. One shooter has a great run and the next has to shoot in the rain. Wind can move targets to the point where you are basically shooting at a mover. The morning squad on one stage may have to look directly into the sun and another squad doesn't have that issue for starting on an opposite facing range. Pasters can be blown off by both wind and rain, or not stick properly. All these may change from one day to the next and the nect days squad may not have to deal with it. The Double Tap comes to mind... those first guys had what 70 degree weather and the next couple of days it was freezing and blowing snow...

Do we reshoot the guy that slipped in the mud because it had started to rain, the guy that had the target move on him when the wind blew, the lady because the sun was in her eyes, postpone because one days conditions where raining and the other day had sunshine? Remember, I'm a shooter first and foremost and it bothers me a great deal when acts of God create inequity, let alone things that can be controlled by people paying attention.

You and I are on the same page on this one and I am not in favor of anything that screws a guy/lady on a run. I'm only stating the other side of it and a possible reason why the our body chose to implement the rule. Would I leave wiggle room in the rule for ROs to make the call? I don't know that there is a consistent way to do that. The consistency wouldn't be there from one RO to the next. I think the only way to maintain equity is to leave it the way it is, or change it to a mandatory reshoot for an unpasted target. Bear in mind all the other reason I have stated here and think about where it ends though too.

I don't really think there is a great or perfect answer on this one... it's ones like this where I'm glad I don't have to make the decision. As a CRO I have to abide by the rules as I see them, not as I would have them... until or unless they are changed you probably wouldn't be happy with my call on the matter. There are other people who would make the call in spite of the rules. Again, I think it needs to be one way or the other. Let's say you get one guy who goes strictly by the rules and it costa you some time. On the next stage the shooter who you are neck and neck with gets a break on this by another RO.... therein lies the enequity. I think it needs to be one way or the other and take the guesswork out of the ROs hands.

I know this isn't the popular view of the subject, and I'm not saying I agree with the rule as written, what I am saying is I understand why it's written the way it is.

Best,

JT

Edited June 18, 2010 by JThompson

[George Jones]

Bottom line -- all competitors in the match deserve an accurate score. (Holy cow, I agree with George -- I might never hear the end of this.....)

[bofe954]

Should I just walk around the stage when everyone is done pasting and setting steel to see if everything has been restored? How much time would it add to the match if everyone did that?

I was in the class with Manny Bragg at A5. One of the things he does that he mentioned to all us is this. He would point out marks on the walls, and barrels to the RO before shooting.

I don't think it really adds any time. He'd do it while we were pasting, the RO is pretty much just hanging out, watching anyway.

You are usually doing your final walkthroughs while they are pasting for you anyway...

[George Jones]

..... the RO is pretty much just hanging out, watching anyway.

[Jake Di Vita]

If I'm the RM, that might very well be a question you'd get: Do you remember the previous competitor's hits for the entire stage? How about the guy before that? Memory's a funny thing -- not always reliable....

Beyond that you'd get questions like this: Are you positive the target wasn't taped? How do you know? Has someone owned up to not taping that? How about the rest of the squad? Could one or more pasters have flown or fallen off the target?

At that point as a RM, all you are doing is questioning my ability as an RO. If I tell you I'm sure of something, and you still question me - well that just doesn't sound quite right does it.

Bottom line -- all competitors in the match deserve an accurate score

We are in agreement. In Kyle's example, did that shooter not receive his accurate score? Was it not done as a judgement call by the RO because the scores were obvious to him?

[Flexmoney]

Whatever you plug in for consideration... Just follow the rule and judge if you can determine an accurate score or not.

I believe I am --- by not stopping at "...the Range Officer must judge whether or not an accurate score can be determined," but by continuing to read and apply the rest of the rule which provides specific guidance for how to accomplish that.....

Ironically, I don't believe you are taking the whole of the rule into account.

You are looking at that narrow section, and...following (just) that...are excluding other evidence from your determination.

I originally asked if there was wording to support using "only" certain evidence. There does not appear to be so. And, we know that a rule that means "only" will usually say so.

I've searched the rule book, and looked at every mention of "evidence". It is not defined. The only thing along those lines is what is not allowed as evidence (video and such). (<<< which is an example of specific exclusion)

I hate to introduce an outside definition, but if you go to Wikipedia, you get this:

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. (Of course, it goes on to speak of circumstantial evidence and direct evidence...which mirrors what we are speaking of here in this discussion.)

To me, the answer lies in that the rule directs us to use judgement...to decide if we can, or cannot, determine and accurate score.

[Flexmoney]

Let me give another example to demonstrate inclusiveness (this isn't in question...just an example) :

At the A5 match last weekend, I had to lean to shoot a paper target through a window. The target was about 10y away, and the window was about half that distance away. With the lean and the distance to the window, the edge of the window was likely to get shot (coroplast, and taped edge). I clipped the window. I made up the shot.

The target had 2 Alphas and 1 Charlie. One of the Alphas had little grease ring. It was clear to me and to the CRO that that was the round that went through the wall.

But, we couldn't just look at the target. We had to go back and look at the wall/window to include the rest of the story. The bullet that struck the wall was, just barely, not a full diameter hit on the wall. It could go on to score.

The target was properly scored as 2-Alpha.

(Again, I know we have rules that spell that one out. It is just an example of being inclusive with regards to evidence.)

[George Jones]

With the exception of safety rules, all shooters receive their score from what happened within the confines of the stage between "Make Ready" and "Range is Clear". Shoothroughs, etc are ruled upon via evidence on the stage.

Previous scoresheets are not.

[Jim Norman]

Unrestored targets can also cause another problem, You can see the targets from multiple positions. You shoot at what YOU as the shooter think are all the targets from pos A, then move on down and shoot all the targets from pos d, there are hits on all the targets, maybe more on some than on others. The RO says, two mikes and and FTE on T5. There are two hits, in your caliber.

He says he KNOWS you didn't shoot at that target, you say, you were sure you did and when you got to pos d, you saw the hits and decided not to shoot as there were already hits on the target, one you KNOW you shot at.

Reshoot? Score as stands? Do I get the hits? or do I get the FTE and two mikes?

For the record, if I remember, I got the two mikes and FTE. This was several years ago, but this thread brought back the memory.

I would rule that unrestored targets, PROVIDING that they are close enough to see the holes on and would normally be a 'blaster' target as opposed to a 30 yard slow down, stop, aim and shoot target should get a reshoot and as soon as the RO sees it, he should just as he would with steel, stop the shooter to save time and ammo both.

Jim

[George Jones]

I would rule that unrestored targets, PROVIDING that they are close enough to see the holes on and would normally be a 'blaster' target as opposed to a 30 yard slow down, stop, aim and shoot target should get a reshoot and as soon as the RO sees it, he should just as he would with steel, stop the shooter to save time and ammo both.

Jim

But the rules do not support doing that. Until the rule is changed, it is what it is.

With steel, it's a different situation altogether due to the "non-availability" of the target after it falls.

[Strick]

Flex, what happens in your scenario from the last page if the pasters just fell off when the shooter shot the target? If you apply the logic you outlined and the previous shooter had 2 A's but when the next shooter shot and a C paster blew/fell/or other wise became unstuck he would be given a C instead of 2 A's.

[CSEMARTIN]

With steel, it's a different situation altogether due to the "non-availability" of the target after it falls.

If a steel target is not restored, is this a reshoot? I thought this only applied in situations where a steel target activates another target.

[George Jones]

With steel, it's a different situation altogether due to the "non-availability" of the target after it falls.

If a steel target is not restored, is this a reshoot? I thought this only applied in situations where a steel target activates another target.

A steel target must be available to the shooter. If it is not available (not reset, down due to shoothrough, wind blew it down, etc) for the shooter to engage it, it is Range Equipment Failure and a mandatory reshoot. It's in the rules.

[PINMAN44]

SA Friday I owe you a whole case of beers, let me know when your back in MD

[Flexmoney]

With the exception of safety rules, all shooters receive their score from what happened within the confines of the stage between "Make Ready" and "Range is Clear". Shoothroughs, etc are ruled upon via evidence on the stage.

Previous scoresheets are not.

You are picking and choosing which evidence that you want to exclude. I asked if there was a basis for that. I don't believe one has been shown.

Why you wouldn't want to include any and all reliable evidence is beyond me. It will either add support or take support away... thus allowing for a better determination. And, if the evidence is questionable for some reason...then don't use it. But, I know I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water and exclude perfectly good information.